Transitioning from Fractional Sales Reps to Full Commercial Ownership in Cybersecurity Startup Algebrix | RevGenius

Transitioning from Fractional Sales Reps to Full Commercial Ownership in Cybersecurity Startup Algebrix | RevGenius

Siddharth S.
·
·
Sales reps ≠ GTM. You're describing a head of growth, or two people - head of sales and head of marketing. Partnerships in itself is a separate beast, and depending on how big the motion is, will need one dedicated person.
👍3
Richard H.
·
·
Agree with Siddharth S.. And I'll add it feels like you should probably still be doing the selling as the founder.
How many paying customers do you have right now?
How did you get them?
What makes you think you're ready for someone to do sales whether it's fractional or part time?
Paying someone part time to do a job they probably don't care about is just throwing money away. You wouldn't be asking the question otherwise.
Anyone good that you try to seduce with a big equity package won't take it.
You need help with messaging, nobody cares about this, "Algebrix is security-first: cybersecurity, IAM/identity (we've also got our own identity as a service platform, AlgebrixIdentity, built for startups/SMEs), plus cloud, AI, and digital transformation."
All they care about are their own use cases and pains. Suggest you shift messaging to discuss those items, not what you do.
👍1
Wissam T.
·
·
One way I'd frame it: fractional reps can cover activity, but someone has to own the system that makes activity compound. I would not hire an end-to-end commercial owner until you can name the repeatable wedge: who buys, why now, how they hear it, and what evidence says the motion works. Until then, keep founder-led selling close and maybe hire a builder/operator who can tighten positioning, pipeline instrumentation, and partner tests. What part is breaking first right now: message clarity, source of qualified conversations, or conversion after first call?
Nicolas L.
·
·
I would echo everything that was shared here. Too often have I seen founders/CEOs scale up their sales org without a repeatable playbook or a functional GTM foundation. Sales should always be founder-led until you can describe and document a succesful sales process with your eyes closed. After that, your first hire should be a person that: a) Has done the zero to one before (this is a very unique skillset b) Has the analytical mindset to turn unstructured insights into a fully-deployed process (that includes tooling c) Has had enough face time with customers to be dangerous and speaks the sales language
👍2
jahangir.danish
·
·
Richard H. fair pushback, and honestly the messaging critique, I have been describing what we do instead of what problem it solves and how it can helpful for their use cases. on founder-led selling, agree and that's still happening. appreciate it you name the reasons directly rather than letting me assume otherwise.
jahangir.danish
·
·
Wissam T. that's genuinely a useful frame, thank you. "name the repeatable wedge before anyone own" is a better filter than anything I had going in. honest answer to your question is : message clarity, which is compounding into weaker qualified lead. conversion after first call is relatively easy, once we get there. so maybe the right move atm is what you said - operator/builder to tighten positioning and pipeline implementation instead of full time commercial role. going to dig deeper on this before i go with co-founder path.
Richard H.
·
·
jahangir.danish my please.
Hassan M.
·
·
jahangir.danish One question I'd ask is whether the bottleneck is execution or ownership. Fractional sales leaders can absolutely build pipeline and process, but someone eventually needs to own the commercial system across marketing, sales and customer success. Before hiring, I'd map where revenue is actually getting stuck. If pipeline is healthy but deals stall, that's a different hire than if positioning isn't landing or handoffs are breaking. I'd solve for the constraint before deciding on the org chart.
👍1
jahangir.danish
·
·
Hassan M. that's a fair question to ask and i totally agree on you point that first constraint needs to be identified before deciding on org chart.